Topic: Is Democracy a bad idea? - page 2. (Read 7088 times)

No one used anonymous electronic markets in that village. They did not employ any technological capitalist solution similar to the one described here.

I'm not disputing that democracy is the best system, and certainly never meant to imply dictatorship even comes close, although I'm of the opinion that crypto-anarchy wouldn't be so bad. They might not even send political opponents to Guantanamo Bay to be tortured without trial.

The potential downside of representative democracy is that our representatives can be bought by corporations and wealthy people who write their own laws, strip away our freedoms, and poison the Earth. They are killing all of us right now. The potential upside of crypto-anarchy is to end that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre

This is what happens when real peasants bet against a real bastard with a militia.  Indiscriminate slaughter followed by a generation of exploitation.

I'd ask you to contrast how police handle political opponents here and then see democracy is better than dictatorship.

Your scheme of allowing the rich to have their own armies, courts and police can end in one guy dominating an area exactly as thoroughly as Assad dominates Syria.  So the potential downside is huge.

And I have yet to see a potential upside :S

What you're describing sounds more like a dictator than a random rich person. Why would he even bother with anonymous markets when he can overtly order hits anyways? Besides, we don't even need assassination markets to deal with such blatant abuse of power - the Arab spring proved that.

But for fun let's run with this scenario. Let's say each peasant would gain 50 BTC worth of utility from "evil army loses City X" or something. They each bet 50 BTC that the evil army will hold the city. If the city falls, then it's a fair deal for everyone who lost money, their utility remains constant. If the army stands, the peasants are reimbursed and can bet again the next week/month/whenever. Meanwhile, Evil Dictator may bet against them to keep the potential profit margin down. He must choose between continually reimbursing peasants for their suffering, or gradually increasing chances of rebel attack.

So, let's see virtual show of hands how many people would like to live in a world that is characterised by

1. RULE-OF-LAW (recognising the people's right to justice and equality)

2. FREE-MARKET (recognising the people's right to entrepreneurship and indiscriminate commerce, encouraging creation of value in form of goods and services)

3. DEMOCRACY (no, not the representative perverted variation most of us live in, the only true one)

4. NO BORDERS (recognising people's right to migrate, travel and re-locate as they wish)


Hmmm... I don't see many hands... In fact I don't see any hands!

And that is my observation of the world - most say that they want the above characterised world, but in reality they are willingly instrumental in executing the exact opposite - they implement RULES that favour the majority in power, they support MARKETS that favour and protect the local or the weak/vulnerable, become part of or suck the dicks of the ruling majority, and spend their lives erecting tall walls at their borders, or support governments that enforce laws that keep foreigners out - all that in the name of coveted security and war against terrorism

No, being arrested/beaten up, tortured, deprived of privacy, being lied to, essentially taking it up the ass does not classify as terrorism, because the entity that does all that is the government (the good guys) and they are only doing that for the greater good of the nation.

Makes me sick, just by thinking about that - then I switch off the TV, change the channel to Audio and immerse myself into some quality peace - one of the 1,500,000 illegal MP3's I have on my NAS ...

Um no.  He has the army.  As Stalin said of the Pope, "How may divisions does he have?"  If you can't defeat the army, you are dead.  If you kill the leader, he will be replaced by his second in command.  Its not realistic to arm people and hope that a shifty assassination will deter them from tyranny.

Because immediately afterwards, the peasants who are getting knocked off by this rich guy pool THEIR money together and kill HIM. The fact that he has most of the power, owns the cops, owns the law... Won't protect him.

So its like life insurance limited to covering death by assassination? 

That fantastic if you are rich in a libertarian paradise.  You get the assassination insurance on someone you dislike and get paid when they die. You kill them. You own the court and you own the police.  You won't be arrested and even if you were your employee, the prosecutor, would accept self-defence and drop the case.

Remind me again how this is an improvement on what we have now?

Yes. I'm sorry, I should have provided a link to avoid this confusion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_market

Murder is unlawful killing.  If you own the court, the killing is lawful.  In a libertarian society where you can buy killings, the whole concept of murder is redundant.

Only if they can hide that fact.  If its known that someone paid for a contract killing, that person will spend a great many years as a guest of the Queen.

In a libertarian society they can go to a market and buy a contract killing the way you and I would buy a butchered pig.  Or have I misunderstood this whole "market in assassinations" concept?

Yes it most certainly is! Murder is murder no matter who tells you it's ok!

The rich can already pay to kill someone. The only thing that assassination markets change is that they allow large groups of disorganized people to pay to kill someone. FWIW I'm pro-democracy too and agree that law enforcement should capture murderers and those who fund them, but we can't just vote market forces away.

So?  If you own the court and you own the police, its not murder when you kill people is it?

Murder isn't allowed under libertarianism anymore than it is now.

I quote myself on this one.  Democracy is the most average system of government. 

The problem is that its the rich will have the money for paying killers.  So if you get into a dispute with your mortgage provider, he can have you killed.  Or your employer.  Or even if a sibling wants to settle a inheritance dispute with you. 

That's not really an attractive prospect.  Our existing system, with the right to kill reserved to the State and even then used rarely, is better.

Hey Hawker, are you in the market for a necromorphic curse? Perhaps it's entirely within the law, even if effective.

You can already do this, especially if you're wealthy. Based on your posts you don't sound like a murderer to me; you would probably only do this to fight off oppressors. And you needn't just assassinate people; any weak point could become a target. You could even short sell "evil army victory" and surprise them with your own profitable guerilla strike to supply lines.

The very notion that I can go down the market and pay to have someone killed is intriguing.  It sounds so much better than the money I wasted on divorce lawyers

Sadly, it would not defeat a well trained army.  They can cope just fine with losing officers.

And, as a way to run a community, its certainly not better than democracy. 

Forgive me for bringing anarchism with adjectives into the mix, but there are differing perspectives for how an anarchist society would deal with high-status members being abusive. Crypto-anarchists (common here) often suggest assassination markets. Other options include powerful unions and local-scale direct democracy. Pretty much any solution without rulers can potentially qualify.